|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical Lessons
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Because of a tangent in another thread, I thought this will be handy before it sinks like a stone.
I personally don't mind them at all. Wisdom appears almost too frequently. I honestly have no idea why, but they still raises hackles.
One reader at church always says "Here ends the reading" instead of "(this is) the word of the Lord" because some priest says he told her too.
Some people say, "I started to buy a new Bible but it had the apocrypha in it so I just couldn't!"
The RCL includes the apocrypha, but unlike its predecessors, it invariably includes a lesson from the protocanonicals. This to me cheapens the apocryphal lessons so they become completely optional. This attitude isn't doing much for Christian unity!
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit, but Con Evos still balk at them and I really don't understand why. The CofE has always included lessons from the Apocrypha so I don't know why some people still pull back when hearing them read.
Why do people car about eliminating from worship so much I wonder?
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit, but Con Evos still balk at them and I really don't understand why.
Is this really so? In my experience, use of the Apocryphal writings in worship is limited to Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglicans. It certainly would raise eyebrows in a Presbyterian or Reformed church and I think it would in a Methodist church as well. (Lutherans I'm not as sure about.) The version of the RCL that we use omits the Apocryphal readings altogether.
FWIW, I prefer Bibles that include the Apocrypha, and I do read from it. But even as I do so, I respect the teaching of my tradition that while there is much of value in them, they are not authoritative and therefore should not be read in worship.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
When a bishop I know was asked by a lower church priest why the bishop suggested always taking the apocryphal option if two were given, he said 1. because the people need to be exposed to it was were the early Christians, and 2. because it is often more edifying than some protocanonical books. Surely Sirach is more "authoritative" than many of the lists in Chronicles!
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
A nineteenth century Anglican cleric in Plymouth, the Rev. Charles Rose Chase, used to ask at bookshops for Bibles, and if presented with ones without all the books would say "I asked for a Bible, not extracts from the Scriptures".
He later became a Catholic and was the founder of the Catholic Missionary Society. The above story is recounted in his biography, "From Hussar to Priest".
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Surely Sirach is more "authoritative" than many of the lists in Chronicles!
An inapt comparison, I would say, comparing the value of one entire book to the value of a portion of another book. (Not to mention comparing a wisdom book to a historical book.)
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
The question, from our perspective at least, is not whether the writing is valuable; it is whether the book should be considered inspired. The people from whom we got it, the Jews, did not consider it inspired. Despite its inclusion in the Septuagint, which was indeed used by the early church, it is clear from Jerome and others that the early church was not of mind about its place in the canon.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Despite its inclusion in the Septuagint, which was indeed used by the early church, it is clear from Jerome and others that the early church was not of mind about its place in the canon.
Sorry, that should have been "of one mind . . . ," of course. Wish the edit window didn't close so quickly.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A nineteenth century Anglican cleric in Plymouth, the Rev. Charles Rose Chase, used to ask at bookshops for Bibles, and if presented with ones without all the books would say "I asked for a Bible, not extracts from the Scriptures".
I trust, then, that he was looking for an Orthodox Bible. I'd hate for him not to have gotten Psalm 151, 1st Esdras or 3rd Maccabees.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Easy peasy.
If you call them the Apocrypha, then why would you include them in the divine service? Except perhaps, at the Hours, when non-canonical readings are included.
If you call the the Deuterocanonicals, then there should be no scruple at all about reading out the inspired word of God.
Either they are in the canon (deuterocanon) or they are not (apocrypha); once that choice is made, all the other decisions are made for you.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Anglicans, though, usually call them "the apocrypha" even when we accept them as sacred scripture. But I think you're right--perhaps we SHOULD change our languge.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
In the 19th century the Evangelicals in the Church of England had a concerted effort at getting the Deuterocanonical books removed from the 1871 Lectionary. They failed! However, their preference for not reading the Apocrypha in Church Bible remains in certain ConEvo circles. Illogical given that even Baptists study "inter-testamental literature" these days. That said, I have one very Con Evo friend who works on the principle if the 1871 Lectionary asks for it I read it, and is pretty well acquainted with the D-C books as a result.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Funny, I was just pondering this issue last night while doing some light house cleaning.
quote:
Mama Thomas:
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit.
I'm afraid I must disagree with that. Although the reading citations may appear on the RCL version provided by most mainlines, mainline churches will invariably take the optional non-apocryphal reading. The one exception would be TEC.
Even my own denom, which is probably the most likely mainline (save TEC) to even think about using these, essentially has conceded that they are not used at all.
The bulletins we order with pre-printed readings never print the apocryphal reading, but always print the other. There is no option to purchase a bulletin with the apocryphal reading. The lectionary book we have prints the non-apocryphal reading with the other readings of the day, and relegates the apocryphal reading to an appendix at the back of the book. I doubt it is a concerted effort to discourage the apocrypha, but rather a resigned acknowledgment that it won't be used.
If I understand correctly, the presence of apocryphal readings appointed for the Great Vigil of Easter was one of the reasons the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod left the Lutheran Book of Worship development project in the 1970s.
We have used the RCL since the 1990s, I believe, and I've become quite accustomed to it. With RCL, it must be understood that if an apocryphal reading is appointed, it is the best fit for the occasion, and is to be taken as the preferred reading. Those who use the Complementary Track will notice the compatibility between the apocryphal reading and the Gospel of the day. The other reading is merely provided for those of squeamish constitutions.
All this talk about fixed canons and such is a bit over-the-top, methinks. Until the advent of the printing press, and eventually the Official Clarification of the canon at the Council of Trent, things were a bit more fluid. It wasn't exactly like today, where we the ordinary faithful can pull out our Bibles and hold them up as the One True Version.
Furthermore, in a church that only read Epistle and Gospel for the better part of a millenium, the public reading of anything Old Testament was not the big deal that it is now. It might have come up occasionally on a feast day that trumped the Sunday. Even then, not all feast days had apocryphal readings appointed.
I'd like to see more apocrypha read, but my denom will not push this. If they were to do so, it would push away even more people.
[ 28. July 2011, 16:46: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
British Methodists use RCL so the deuterocanonical books appear, though as noted usually with an alternative. For similar reasons as those given above, I would always choose the deuterocanonical option rather than the alternative; we had a reading from Wisdom only the other week.
[ 28. July 2011, 19:42: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots. I know most Anglicans probably don't think about it and will buy a Bible for various reasons, and simply not check to see if it has the Deuteros. Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).
Honestly, though, they were used by Christians without fail for 15 hundred years despite what Hierome saith, and they still are used by the vast majority of Christians.
No one can say the evil Catholics added them at a certain point just to be malicious. One can say that they were removed by a certain faction at certain point in time. And didn't Martin Luther himself accept Laodicians and want to exclude James?
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots.
It could very much be a pond difference, or perhaps I am simply mistaken. I would be happily corrected if an American Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran were to post that they and the majority of churches in their denom use the apocryphal reading when appointed.
quote:
Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).[/QB]
For what it's worth, I check!
quote:
Honestly, though, they were used by Christians without fail for 15 hundred years despite what Hierome saith, and they still are used by the vast majority of Christians.
Used, perhaps, but were 73-book Bibles all bound together as one quite common before Trent?
quote:
No one can say the evil Catholics added them at a certain point just to be malicious.
Martin walks away, muttering to self about matters Tridentine...
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Martin L makes a good point. In our RCL the deuterocanonical lessons are printed in a separate section, not with the other readings of the day. The (proto)canonical reading is printed instead, followed by the other two readings.
I would say that placement at least discourages its use. I myself would not use it in the liturgy. But perhaps other Lutherans out there have a different view.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
I am getting an education. I honestly thought Lutherans used or at least didn't mind the Apoc/Deuteros! What with the "other" Ten Commandments and all...
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[QUOTE]Why the c16th reformers, supposedly so keen to go back to the uncorrupted ways of the early church, decided to ditch some bits of the OT with which the church had been happy for a millennium and a half because the Jews had decided that they didn't like the sound of them . . . .
Didn't like the sound of them? It was because the Jews determined that they shouldn't have been included in the Septuagint to begin with, given that the Septuagint was supposed to be a translation from the Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures did not include them.
Reasonable arguments can be made for and against including the Apocrypha.
/Sorry, done with the tangent. Can we peg it on considerations about including the Apocrypha in the lessons? [Hot and Hormonal]
Nick Tamen
I hope that this is the right place to put this.
This is a thorny question. According to tradition Ptolemy Philadelphos, King of Egypt in the mid c3 BC asked for a translation into Greek of the Hebrew scriptures. The exact form (look at the LXX text of Jeremiah which is all over the place compared with the Massoretic) and extent of 'scripture' was more fluid then, but there is no reason to suppose that the translators inserted whole books into their translation that had not existed in Hebrew already. The result was the Septuagint, which became the 'bible' of Greek speaking diaspora Jews and then of the earliest Christians. Obviously some items were added later, given that certain books deal with later events - e.g. Maccabees, Wisdom and ?Baruch (I Maccabees and Baruch look to have been orginally written in Hebrew - Wisdom was almost certainly composed in Greek). And presumably Daniel as it refers to events in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 - 163). In about 100 AD a group of rabbis are suppposed to have got together at the 'Council of Jamnia' and decided to ditch certain works from the canon as they defined it - but apparently on the whole more because of their content than the language in which the texts were written. This process certainly happened, though whether there ever was an actual Council of Jamnia is dubious. So Tobit, Judith, chunks of Esther and Daniel &c. were excised.
So - the Hebrew texts are translated into Greek, expanded somewhat, and accepted as scripture by the nascent church, and continue to be more or less accepted for 1500 years. The Jews jettison some of them at a point well after the establishment of the church. What you can't say is that the deuterocanonical works should be discarded en bloc because "the Hebrew scriptures did not contain them". When the church started they did contain many of them - and why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The United Church of Canada does not read from the Apocrypha and those lessons are not included our printing of the Revised Common Lectionary in the back of Voices United.
Bibles purchased for church use never include the Apocrypha. Some versions in the minister's study might have them, but just for the minister's academic interest.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly thought Lutherans used or at least didn't mind the Apoc/Deuteros!
Well, think of them as our 39 Articles. They're printed somewhere in our worship materials, in practice we don't spend a lot of time objecting to their presence, but you'd be hard-pressed to see us using them to their full potential.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada does not read from the Apocrypha and those lessons are not included our printing of the Revised Common Lectionary in the back of Voices United.
Bibles purchased for church use never include the Apocrypha. Some versions in the minister's study might have them, but just for the minister's academic interest.
Hmm. The Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland also includes the Revised Common Lectionary, with some modifications of its own. The 'thematic' OT lesson for the Sunday between June 26th and July 2nd in year B is taken from Wisdom. A quirk, or are the Kirk's censors not sufficiently eagle-eyed?
I was once asked to read a lesson at the opening worship of the meeting of a (UK) URC provincial synod. I did so, from the large lectern bible which I suppose was the one normally used in the church. The lesson that I read was from Ecclesiasticus. I don't recall the assembled company collapsing in horror at this. Perhaps puritanism isn't what it used to be, except, of course, in Canada .....
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
No used in the Presbyterian Church in Canada either. My main study Bible has them but I would guess most of the people in the pews have only a vague idea that they even exist.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
[ 28. July 2011, 21:46: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
Or perhaps they thought it was Ecclesiastes?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
Or perhaps they thought it was Ecclesiastes?
Possible I suppose. It must have been about five years ago, but as far as I recall I was given an incipit, and that ran that the lesson was 'a reading from the Book of the Wisdom of Ben Sirach' (sic - I was specifically not to say 'Jesus Ben Sirach'). I think it was from chapter 20 something - certainly a higher number than the last chapter of Qoheleth.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
And he was overruled by the Church. Sucks to be him.
BTW Sirach is dreadful. It's the only book of the Bible I couldn't force myself to finish.
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
Why indeed. That seems to be the bottomline question. Do we trust the infant church, or the rabbis whose ruling came after the church and the synagogue went their separate ways?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
Around the UCCan they tend to be NIV, Good News or NRSV. Usually by a combination of that's what the Session and Minister will permit and what's least expensive to purchase in bulk from book stores.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
Easy there, Tiger.
Sometimes Mrs. Throckmorton and the Evos aren't really to blame.
It could be the case that the pew racks could only hold the "Extracts from the Scriptures." The thicker canonical book could have been to thick to fit. Or, it could have been something to do with the price.
And, be sure: When the preacher is in the pulpit misconstruing God's Holy Word, you can be sure that I am fulminating and have got my finger pointed at the pertinent text.
mousethief, what's so bad with Sirach? It's one of my favs.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Easy there, Tiger.
Sometimes Mrs. Throckmorton and the Evos aren't really to blame.
It could be the case that the pew racks could only hold the "Extracts from the Scriptures." The thicker canonical book could have been to thick to fit. Or, it could have been something to do with the price.
And, be sure: When the preacher is in the pulpit misconstruing God's Holy Word, you can be sure that I am fulminating and have got my finger pointed at the pertinent text.
mousethief, what's so bad with Sirach? It's one of my favs.
Thanks, TSA. You're always a voice of reason. Yeah, MT, Sirach is cool, better than Proverbs for the most part. So what's don't you like.
I think I've read every line of scripture except, I think, for "the rest of the book of Esther." I have never heard a word of it read in church, nor have I finished the book for some reason. The God bits irk me, as I was taught "Esther is the only book in the Bible that never mentions God." But then, with the "rest" it does!
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's an endless list of moral platitudes, most of which are demonstrably false.
It's like being lectured by your horrid Aunt Sally about things she knows nothing about.
[ 29. July 2011, 01:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
mousethief, thanks for the answer. I think differently about them, especially the demonstrably false part, but different strokes.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
The Eccles and Kerygmania hosts have been watching the thread for the balance between liturgical practice and scriptural discussion. The scale has tipped away from the former and into the latter, so we're going to do a lateral over to Kerygmania. Hang on to your Bibles...
Mamacita, Eccles Host
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I'd say that US Methodists (and other North American mainline Protestants) think that it is OK to read and study the Apocrypha, and for that matter non-canonical Gospels and Epistles, for context when reading the canonical books, and for edification. But they are not read in public worship or preached on, any more than the Gospel of Thomas would be. But they are not evil.
Even quite moderate American evangelicals consider the Apocrypha to be pernicious popish nonsense- dangerous even to read on one's own. Initially, the publishers of the decidedly evangelical ESV Bible intended to publish an edition of the ESV including the Apocrypha only in the UK! That would seem to indicate clearly that the place of the Apocrypha in Protestant worship is very much a pond difference.
I think that the book of Wisdom is wonderful, personally. Considering it inspired is one of the draws of Anglicanism for me.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I've only heard lessons from the Apocrypha being read in a Lutheran church once or twice -- in a high-up-the-candle university parish. And even there, as the text was announced you could hear a nervous buzz: The Book of whaaaat???...
Of course, this is a place where, after our pastoral intern preached a brilliant sermon drawing not only from the Gospel texts but from sources ranging from The Color Purple to Lewis Thomas' Lives of a Cell , some cranky back-row Pietists were getting their knickers in a knot about "Preaching from the Bible, not 'words of men.'" There's just no pleasing heretic hunters.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I won't say I've never heard a reading from the Apocrypha in a church that I have been a member of, but I will say that I don't remember ever hearing one.
And I've never heard a sermon preached on one, even in higher-up places that do use them now and again. And come to think about it the only readings I remember in those places are the same handful of verses from ben Sirach & maybe Wisdom of Solomon. As far as public worship in the Church of England is concerned - or 95% of the CofE at least - the Apocrypha is maybe five pages long. No-one ever uses any of the rest of it.
I've read discussions of Tobit in books about ancient Hebrew literature, and in loony books and websites obsessed with angels, and in quite sound books on Biblical interpretation, even ones written by evangelicals, I suppose because the little dog is cute. But I don't remember ever hearing it read or referenced in church.
Similarly I've read lots of Christian books that use 1 & 2 Maccabees as a historical source. Including ones written by evangelicals. But they are talking about the historical background to Scripture, or the social context in which Jesus was born, they aren't treating it as Holy Scripture in its own right.
Judith provides a great source for bloodthirsty paintings and oratorios.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
And he was overruled by the Church. Sucks to be him.
Indeed he was, and indeed it does. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But that doesn't change the point I was trying to make -- that in the early church (pre-Jerome, pre-Nicene, etc.), the canon was more fluid, so that it becomes a little more difficult to say "this was accepted by The Church" and "this wasn't accepted by The Church."
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
Why indeed. That seems to be the bottomline question. Do we trust the infant church, or the rabbis whose ruling came after the church and the synagogue went their separate ways?
Well, the rabbis' ruling came when the church was in its true infancy, some time before the Church's decision. I understand it's not convincing to many, but it is to others.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots. I know most Anglicans probably don't think about it and will buy a Bible for various reasons, and simply not check to see if it has the Deuteros. Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I'd say that US Methodists (and other North American mainline Protestants) think that it is OK to read and study the Apocrypha, and for that matter non-canonical Gospels and Epistles, for context when reading the canonical books, and for edification. But they are not read in public worship or preached on, any more than the Gospel of Thomas would be.
As I have read through this thread, I have wondered if there are two conversations going on, and I think Ty has picked up on them:
1. Whether mainliners would read or study the deuterocanonical writings (reflected in Mama Thomas's comments on buying a Bible with or without them), and
2. Whether mainlers would read from the deuterocanonical writings in worship or preach from them.
I think without a doubt that many, many mainlers read or study them without any qualm, and may even (like me) prefer Bibles that include them. It's the second question that's going to be answered almost universally negatively for mainliners outside TEC.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
It does to us. Quotes from and allusions to the Deuts in the New Testament are legion. On the other hand, it could be argued that since James (or is it Jude?) quotes from a book that's not even in the LXX, that's not anything like a knock-down, drag-out argument for the inclusion of the Deuts in the canon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LostinChelsea
Shipmate
# 5305
|
Posted
For the Service of Advent Lessons & Carols in our TEC parish, I encourage folks to invite friends by saying, "Tell them it's safe because there's no communion, no preaching, and no alms collection -- in other words, nothing weird, just Bible reading and singing!" Gave me a laugh, at least.
Last time a parishioner told me, "I brought a Baptist friend and told her what you said. Afterwards she said, 'There was a reading from Baruch. I thought that was weird!'"
I recently did a funeral for a retired college professor and chose a reading from Sirach on the nature and pursuit of Wisdom. Made for a wholly appropriate reflection.
--------------------
Best when taken in moderation.
Posts: 237 | From: Deep South USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Eh? When?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Even the Golden Rule is a reworking of a verse from Tobit. The fact remains that the vast majority of Christians has always read these books in worship as sacred scripture. I can't imagine a someone thinking a stained glass window of Judith is somehow morally or theologically suspect while one of Deborah is not.
Remember the 80s classic "Chariots of Fire"? It begins with a world famous reading from Scripture, from the Deuts. I don't remember anyone ever saying "it's not really holy, you know."
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Even the Golden Rule is a reworking of a verse from Tobit.
And many, many other ancient sources.
quote:
I can't imagine a someone thinking a stained glass window of Judith is somehow morally or theologically suspect while one of Deborah is not.
This seems like something of a straw man. Who said anything about "morally suspect." Why would a stained glass window of Judith be any more suspect than a stained glass window of a saint? (One could argue it would be much less suspect than a window of St. George.) If a tradition doesn't have a problem with stained glass depictions of people (or of non-biblical people) to begin with, I don't think Judith would raise any eyebrows.
quote:
Remember the 80s classic "Chariots of Fire"? It begins with a world famous reading from Scripture, from the Deuts. I don't remember anyone ever saying "it's not really holy, you know."
Perhaps because it was read as the introduction to a eulogy, not as a Scripture reading. (That is, assuming anyone gave thought to the source to begin with.)
quote:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Who said anything about "evil"? Noncanonical and evil are hardly the same thing.
This may not be an apt analogy, but I'll give it a stab. Consider the Declaration of Indendence and the US Constitution. No American I know of demeans in any way the Declaration. It is honored, and probably is quoted more than the Constitution. ("When in the course of human events...." "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal...." "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.") We look to it as an exposition of the values we as a nation hold most dear.
But unlike the Constitution, the Declaration has no legal authority at all. No court will look to it to determine what the law requires and what it forbids. No cause of action can be stated for violation of the Declaration of Indendence.
In a similar way, most Prostetants would say the deuterocanonical books, may be valuable, but they are not authoritative. We do not look to them to establish the faith. To the extant they agree with the books that are considered authoritative, great! To the extent they do not, the books considered authoritative trump them. That's all -- no "evil," no "morally suspect."
Though I will concede, there may be a bit of "we're not Catholics" at play sometimes. (Cue Monty Python: "And what are we?" "Protestants, and fiercely proud of it!")
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Whilst I agree completely with you, I think many proddies would say that it's because there's bits of the apocrypha that contradicts other teaching of the Bible. For example, they'll say that part of the apocrypha is about praying to the dead, which they see as "spiritualist".
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I seem to recall that the ASB Lectionary was a bit light on readings from the Deuteros. These days I generally run into it at MP and EP - we are on the story of that well-know clan the MacCabes ![[Biased]](wink.gif) at the moment. The old Eucharistic lectionary does not use them, or the OT very much, so if the congo heres the Apocrypha it is in the context of the "Pike Rite."
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Eh? When?
Matt. 6:19-20 - laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven cf Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt. 7:16,20 - "you will know them by their fruits" cf. Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 11:25 - "Lord of heaven and earth" cf Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 16:18 - "power of death" and "gates of Hades" cf Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" cf. 1 Macc. 1:54 & 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" cf. 1 Macc. 2:28.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root cf Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched cf Judith 16:17.
Luke 13:29 - men coming from east and west to rejoice in God cf Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - "fall by the edge of the sword" cf. Sirach 28:18.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven cf Baruch 3:29.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down cf. Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
More examples here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Thank you, Leo!
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Bypassing the nettlesome issue of the ipsa verba of Jesus, may I point out that the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testamant helpfully provides a 35-page appendix of citations and allusions to the Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha (pp. 773-808).
About six pages of this are citations and allusions to the Deuterocanon and other sources (Book of Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, Enoch, Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypses of Baruch and Elijah, and seven of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs).
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
The Reformers' campaign to to jettison a considerable portion of the Christan scriptures can be traced to their intense prejudice against prayers for the departed. The passage which so offended their ears is found in 2 Maccabees 12: 40-46. They presumably found it easier to reject every book in the Septuagint which survived in Greek translation but not in Hebrew than to come up with a plausible reason to discard this one book. Rather ironically, Jewish worship continues to follow the example of Judas Maccabeus and includes prayers for the dead.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
That sounds so plausible! Can you provide a link on that? There has to be a reason why they rejected such a huge chunk of their Christian heritage. I always thought it odd they would base their canon on the Jewish canon of the middle ages rather than on the Christian canon of the ages. Your explanation also explains why they kept the order of the books of the OT sans Deutero and did not adopt the Jewish order of the books.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Whilst I agree completely with you, I think many proddies would say that it's because there's bits of the apocrypha that contradicts other teaching of the Bible. For example, they'll say that part of the apocrypha is about praying to the dead, which they see as "spiritualist".
Yes because if you throw out the Deuts, there are no passages of scripture that contradict any other passages of scripture. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
